|Decision on Judicial Notice - 01.04.2005||
45. With respect to the Prosecution’s argument to the effect that documentary evidence must also be adjudicated evidence, the Appeals Chamber concurs with the Trial Chamber in the Bizimungu case which concluded that the wording of Rule 94(B) of the Rules suggests that the term “adjudicated” only relates to “facts” and does not extend to “documentary evidence”. Thus, the Trial Chamber held that:
“…under Sub-Rule 94(B), both facts (which have been previously adjudicated) and documents (which have been received and admitted in previous proceedings) may be judicially noticed. Therefore, to be taken judicial notice of, the facts must be adjudicated facts, meaning facts upon which, on a previous occasion, in another case, this Tribunal in any of its several Chambers has deliberated and made a decision. Such decision must be conclusive in that it is not under challenge before the Appeals Chamber or if challenged, the Appeals Chamber upheld it. Regarding the second part of Sub-Rule 94(B), to be taken judicial notice of, documents must constitute “documentary evidence from other proceedings of the Tribunal” and must “relate to the matter at issue in this case”. 
[…] Documents do not need to be “adjudicated” i.e. the Chamber in other proceedings does not need to have pronounced a specific and unchallenged or unchallengeable decision on the admissibility of the document. It is enough that the document was admitted into evidence or “admis lors d’autres affaires portées devant le Tribunal”
47. The Appeals Chamber notes that concerning “documentary evidence”, Rule 94(B) of the Rules enables a Chamber to take judicial notice of discrete items of evidence such as the testimony of a witness or a trial exhibit, not an entire judgement. Accordingly, the Appeals Chamber could take judicial notice of the section of the report proffered […] if it was satisfied that it meets the requirements set out in Rules 94(B) and 115 of the Rules. […] The Appeals Chamber finds nonetheless, that it would not serve judicial economy to grant the Appellant’s request and judicially notice entire sections of a report or document, since the Appellant has not demonstrated exactly which part of the section is relevant to the current proceedings. The mere reference to whole sections or paragraphs of “documentary evidence” of a previous judgement is insufficient to trigger the exercise of the Chamber’s discretion under Rule 94(B) of the Rules.
55. […] Bearing in mind the text of Rule 94(B) of the Rules, the Appeals Chamber notes that one paragraph in a judgement can contain more than one fact. Accordingly, a request pursuant to Rule 94(B) of the Rules must be specific if the facts sought to be judicially noticed are to be clearly determined. A motion under Rule 94(B) of the Rules should specify exactly which fact is sought to be judicially noticed and how each fact relates to the matters at issue in the current proceedings, in the instant case, to the grounds of appeal raised.
 Prosecutor v. Casimir Bizimungu et al., ICTR-99-50-I, Decision on Prosecution’s Motion for Judicial Notice Pursuant to Rules 73, 89 and 94, 2 December 2003, para. 34.
 Ibid., para. 35.
 Ibid. [Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreškić et al, IT-95-16-A, Decision on the Motions of Drago Josipović, Zoran Kupreškić and Vlatko Kupreškić to Admit Additional Evidence Pursuant to Rule 115 And For Judicial Notice to be Taken Pursuant to Rule 94(B), 8 May 2001, para. 6, ad finem.]]
 Regarding “adjudicated facts” sought to be judicially noticed through the reproduction of whole paragraphs of a judgement, see: Bizimungu 10 December 2004 Decision on Defence Motion [Prosecutor v. Casimir Bizimungu et al., ICTR-99-50-I, Decision on Prosper Mugiraneza’s First Motion for Judicial Notice Pursuant to Rule 94(B), 10 December 2004]], para. 13 and Bizimungu 10 December 2004 Decision on Prosecution Motion [Prosecutor v. Casimir Bizimungu et al., ICTR-99-50-I, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Motion and Notice of Adjudicated Facts (Rule 94(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence),10 December 2004]], para. 19.
 Bizimungu 10 December 2004 Decision on Defence Motion, para. 13; Bizimungu 10 December 2004 Decision on Prosecution’s Motion, para. 19.
|ICTR Rule Rule 94(B) ICTY Rule Rule 94(B)|